Subject: Re: I like chocolate and matters someone has related to it

From: "jjllambias2000" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 01:33:24 -0000

la djorden cusku di'e

> I'm not sure about the ro can't be 0 part, but
> other than that I concede. Do you happen to have a ref to where
> in the book it says that ro can't mean 0, btw?

Just for the record, I do not agree with pc that ro can't
be 0. I don't think that {ro broda cu brode} entails
{su'o broda cu brode}. We've discussed this lots of times
in the past. Searching for "existential import" probably
will get you to one of the discussions, if you're reeeeeally 
interested. (Both positions are consistent, it is merely a 
matter of which definition you're more comfortable with, and 
it has practically no effect on anything.)

> The specific example this arose out of was an utterance by Mark
> Shoulson on irc using "zo'epe mi xe klama" and "mi xe klama". (By
> which he meant le karce pe mi xe klama). Clearly the former is
> fine. The question that came up indirectly was whether or not "tu'a
> mi xe klama" makes sense, if you are talking about your karce. To
> me it seems to be the same thing as raising from an abstraction,
> but you are likely actually "raising" from a relative clause 
construct
> (le karce poi mi ponse ke'a ku'o).

I suppose you could force {le mi karce cu nu mi co'e}, which is
what you would need. But cars are not the most central examples
of {nu}s.

mu'o mi'e xorxes